“I don’t like her. I wished Biden or Warren was running against her. They could have given her the run for her money Sanders, as an avowed socialist, could not. ”

Sanders looks like he tied her in Iowa and is polling ahead of her in New Hampshire. He IS giving her a run for her money. The reality is that he’s too far to the left, not for the country in general, but for upper middle class Democrats who don’t want their taxes to go up.

You all just need to admit that you prefer Clinton to Sanders because you prefer the status quo, and that Clinton, a socially moderate small government fiscal conservative IS what you want, and have always really wanted.

“The lesser of the two evils. Whomever the GOP nominates is guaranteed to be more pro-Wall Street and more pro-war.”

This really isn’t very likely. Despite the shrieking about Cruz wanting to carpet bomb ISIS Clinton’s advocacy of the the Libyan war and her desire to play chicken with Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria indicates that she is equally pro-war as any of the Republicans.

Obama and Bill Clinton always got support from the majority of Democrats for their wars, so there will be no opposition to her military adventurism. Ultimately it will be “well she must know what she’s doing, she’s one of us after all”

You all just need to admit that winning the culture war is more important to you than wars that mostly kill foreigners and maybe some working class kids who went into the army to pay for college.

____________

What I saw clearly sometime ago: Democrats are major neocons, while never admitting it – and they always justify their evil and morally bankrupt “neoconnery” by saying the Republicans are worse. How could anyone hold them accountable, they ask?

It’s no wonder the LGBT mafia has endorsed Hillary. She is the union of military and sexual perverts.

At this point, what difference does it make..or something like that. She will say anything to get elected and she is a horrible candidate. Not just because she is a phony, corrupt, immoral (ask Vince Foster in your next life) and a “congenital liar”, but she is really bad on the stump. Who else would be having such a difficult time with a SOCIALIST?

___________

🙂 Indeed.

_______________
MJR says:
February 4, 2016 at 7:47 pm

From an outsider’s perspective it looks like the Democrats have their own “What’s the matter with Kansas” issue. They don’t seem to be bothered by Clinton being a oligarch and Wall Street enabler, as long as she toes the line on identity politics. While Wall Street has endured an a tsunami of criticism from the left, I rarely hear the cartel in Silicon Valley criticized, except on the sacred issue of “diversity”.

The left is okay with oligarchy as long as it’s socially liberal, and the mainstream right seems to consider oligarchy the natural outcome of the Market(peace be upon it). There are simply no mainstream options that offer resistance.

___________

Alan Veenstra said about her Wall Street (bribery) fees:

$675K is pocket change. Let’s look at the $1BILLION in the Clinton Crime Family’s foundation.

Who gave how much. How much came from foreign nationals while Hildebeast was letting Benghazi calls go to voice mail.

______________

And lastly, did you see this?

The chart above plots the popularity of the baby name “Hillary” between 1970 and 2014. What you’ll notice right away is that the frequency of the name falls of a cliff starting in 1993, the year Hillary Clinton became first lady.

Francis Smart of the Econometrics by Simulation blog first pointed this out the other day. He notes that the drop is especially striking, given that the popularity of “Hillary” was rising sharply upward until 1992 or so, the year the Clintons first came on to the national stage.

Funny

1 comment

[…] these people? But the answer to this question is simple and it has been nicely laid out in a previous comment at The American Conservative, where the commenter noted that identity politics will trump everything else for this segment of […]